So, let me ask you, when or how do you plan on obtaining our QB of the future? Next year? That would mean that we're expecting to be drafting in the top 5 or so; which would also mean that the contract for the QB next year would be more than what we would be paying now. Not too mention, if that QB busts, then you just wasted this year.FA/Trade? Not likelyOn roster? about as likely as FA/Trade option

How is this not likely? You can find teams willing to part with talented QBs either through trade or free agency because they are just too expensive to keep on the team.(Hasselback,Brees,Cassell,Schaub,Quinn, Leinart etc...). In other words, you can find QBs all the time (even if the Lions haven't) you can't find OL and defense IMO. They just aren't available because good teams understand their value.

You don't find really good defensive players or OL floating around in free agency unless they are at the end of their ropes. That's why the team let them go in the first place. That's why early picks of these types of players are paramount.

I'm not saying it's easy to find a franchise QB, but picking them first overall isn't the only way to get one like some of you are making it out to be.

I think we all can agree with that

Blueskies wrote:

Cutler is the only QB on your list that was let go or traded in his prime when he was a known commodity. And it was a once in a lifetime occurrence.

Exactly, and look how much it cost. I think the Bears paid way too much; I certainly wouldn't have wanted the Lions to give that much.

sweetd20 wrote:

As I've said before I don't like any of these guys as #1 picks not Curry, Stafford, Monroe, Smith, etc... But of course the Lions pick this year to be that team. My heart says Curry, my gut, says, Smith, but my head says take the gamble on Stafford. I think a lot of people even though they don't want to say it are falling into the idea that if the Dolphins and Falcons can turn it around in one year why can't the Lions? Those teams were much better off overall as far as overall talent than the Lions are going into this season. Also let's see them do it again, because I'd rather have a team that is a perennial winner than a roller coaster team. I want a team that when they have a bad season it's 6-10 or 7-9 not 3-13 or worse.

Anyways the Lions are in a good spot to take this gamble despite the cap hit if he does bust. They can't get any worse unless the league expands the season and they have what looks like a born again Culpepper as a safety net. Palmer sat for a year and that worked out pretty good for him and the Bengals. So Stafford gets paid to sit for a year or more, does it suck? You bet, but if he pans out "yahtzee." In that time build the defense through this year and next year's draft as well as FA and either get a LT to groom this year or get a Ciron Black or Russell Okung next year. Even id he doesn't pan out they take the cap hit and move on while Culpepper holds down the fort for three or four years. I don't like the gamble but now might be the best time to do it, when the expectations are low.

They have so many holes Curry isn't turning them around this season and neither is Smith. All Curry is going to do is give us that warm fuzzy feeling if he makes some big plays. This isn’t a guarantee, especially with a less than stellar DL keeping blockers off of him. Look at the seasons Lewis and Urlacher had when they had less talent playing in front of them. Let's not forget just because we all love Curry and he's listed as the safest pick doesn't mean he can't fizzle in the league (1996 Kevin Hardy LB #2 pick).

The 1st round picks are your studs, the guys that take a team to that next level they aren't the building blocks unless they are DL or LT. The team comes from the rest of the draft and hitting on a few surprises and at least adding depth. That is where the Lions were hurt under Mil len. It wasn't that he was a complete boob when it came to the first round, even though he was. It's that not only could he not draft players in the later rounds to help the Lions once they left the Lions teams either didn't want them or for the most part weren't even worthy of contributing anywhere in the NFL.

Every team has whiffs in the 1st round even the mighty Patriots have had their fair share this decade, but the teams that can build through the later rounds are the ones that find they are contending almost every year. I believe the Giants in '07 had eight drat picks that year contribute to their Super Bowl. Stafford might not be the right pick and could cost them by eating up cap space but it's the majority of the other picks this year and next that are going to decide the future of the Lions. It's not Curry, Stafford, or Smith as much as everybody wants to say that #1 pick is what is going to make or break them.

I think too many people want that instant gratification and that's what "Moron of the Millenium" was looking for instead of building a team. I'll feel the same if it's Curry, Stafford, or Smith and that's that I won't expect much from the Lions at all this season. Smith is going to need time and a LG, Curry a better DL, and Stafford an OL and time to develop. There is no magic pill, snake oil, or super player that will raise the Lions to contender instead of door mat. The only answer is time, hard work, and dedication from the staff, current players, and future players.

Well said; agree

April 23rd, 2009, 9:18 pm

phunnypharm

#1 Overall Pick

Joined: October 13th, 2005, 10:34 amPosts: 1427

Re: Ramblings about drafting Stafford

Touchdown Jesus wrote:

m2karateman wrote:

Stafford can become a great QB, but not until the team that he plays for allows him to develop, and is capable of building the team around him to be such that they aren't dependent on him to win games. Big Ben fell into a PERFECT situation in Pittsburgh, because they've NEVER put the ball into his hands and said, "it's up to you to win the game." at the onset of that game. Sure, he's had game winning drives that have won games, like in the Super Bowl. But he's never felt the pressure that he will have to be the one to pull it out if it is close at the end, at the beginning of the game. He had a stellar defense, he had a solid running game to rely on until he got his opportunities to make his mark. Same thing happened last season for both Flacco and Ryan. It wasn't put on them to keep the team in the game and win it.

The Lions have so much building to do, and they need those pieces to get it done. If they draft Stafford and their other picks don't pan out, then the result is that Stafford has no shot of working out either. Get the parts now, see how they do. Then, once you have them in place, bring in your fancy new toy (franchise QB), get a stop gap vet QB (if one isn't already in place) and then when the kid is given his chance, it will be on much better terms than if he is forced into service (ala Joe Flacco) due to injury or illness.

I understand what you're saying, but the main problem with your line of reasoning is that finding a franchise QB after the team already has some success is very hard to do. Pitt got Big Ben after a terrible year so they had a relatively high draft pick. Flacco is still an unknown. It's not as simple as just picking a franchise QB anywhere. They are hard to come by. The Bears have been trying to find one for years. They may finally have one now. The Bucs, Ravens, Jags, Titans...all solid teams with good D that have been hoping for a franchise QB for a long time.

Now, I'll take their success over the Lions failure any day. I'm just saying that finding a franchise QB is hard, and if you think you have a shot at him now, you take him. The bottom line to me is that if Stafford turns out to be a solid QB, I have no problem if he sits for a year, or even 2. Long term success is how I measure things. Not what a player can do next year.

I understand you points.... and I agree that the CHANCES of finding a long-term solution at QB are better in the first round. I say "long term solution" because I really only see about 5-7 guys in the NFL that I consider to be "franchise QBs"...... and the rest are just "game managers" as far as I am concerned.

Now on to my MAIN points:

#1......... The Lions will have more chances to get a 1st round QB!!!

The Steelers, Ravens, Jags, Titans, and Giants have all drafted QBs in the 1st round this decade.... despite being much more stable and consistent than the Lions. The LAST thing the Lions should be worried about is whether or not they will have an "opportunity" to get a QB in the top 10 picks in the future..... considering that we have drafted outside the top 10 in only 1 year since the Millen Era began.

There are VERY FEW teams that don't draft in the top 10 picks every 3 to 4 seasons.

#2......... As good as the Ravens, Titans, and Jags have been as a TEAM.... drafting a QB in the 1st round still doesn't guarantee that the QB will be a success.

Kyle Boller, Vince Young, and Byron Leftwhich were all put in a GREAT position to succeed.... but still didn't.

Stafford is seen by most scouts as a good..... but not GREAT prospect.... and putting in a DIFFICULT position only increases the BUST FACTOR.

April 23rd, 2009, 9:38 pm

m2karateman

RIP Killer

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10136Location: Where ever I'm at now

Re: Ramblings about drafting Stafford

Blueskies wrote:

m2karateman wrote:

Stafford can become a great QB, but not until the team that he plays for allows him to develop, and is capable of building the team around him to be such that they aren't dependent on him to win games. Big Ben fell into a PERFECT situation in Pittsburgh, because they've NEVER put the ball into his hands and said, "it's up to you to win the game." at the onset of that game. Sure, he's had game winning drives that have won games, like in the Super Bowl. But he's never felt the pressure that he will have to be the one to pull it out if it is close at the end, at the beginning of the game. He had a stellar defense, he had a solid running game to rely on until he got his opportunities to make his mark. Same thing happened last season for both Flacco and Ryan. It wasn't put on them to keep the team in the game and win it.

The Lions have so much building to do, and they need those pieces to get it done. If they draft Stafford and their other picks don't pan out, then the result is that Stafford has no shot of working out either. Get the parts now, see how they do. Then, once you have them in place, bring in your fancy new toy (franchise QB), get a stop gap vet QB (if one isn't already in place) and then when the kid is given his chance, it will be on much better terms than if he is forced into service (ala Joe Flacco) due to injury or illness.

The fallacy here is that you're equating the first pick with "building up the team".

The first pick is only one pick. Just one guy. Let's not make it out to be more than it is.

In order for the FO to "build this team up" they're going to have to hit on many picks, both this year and the next two or three.

Where did you get that from? I never said or implied that. In fact, my point is just the opposite. Read what is in bolt type above. If they take Stafford and the other picks fizzle like in past years, his chances of succeeding are zero.

Blueskies wrote:

Let's assume they take Stafford. Then they sit him for a year. They go defense/offensive line with picks 20, 33, 3a, and 3b. In the 2010 draft they use their first, second, and third rounds picks on more defensive players/offensive lineman. Then Stafford starts the 2010 season with a "built team" comprised of the 7 new offensive lineman/defensive players you brought in with picks other than the #1 pick.

Remember, the Lions have a lot of good picks this year, and Stafford doesn't have to play right away. There is no reason to say that the team cannot be "built up" by the time he starts. Further, there is no reason to say you can't build a team up without drafting Aaron Curry.

I think most people are overvaluing the number one pick. The player selected will have a huge impact, but he won't make or break the franchise.

You have successfully repeated EVERYTHING I said in my post above. What was YOUR point, other than to mimic everything I stated?

Of all the positions, the QB is the most important. However, of all the positions, the QB most relies on other positions to help make him successful. Can't do it without a running game, can't do it without receivers, can't do it without a good line, can't do it without a good or better defense. Quarterbacks need that support.

The players we take at other positions, the high picks, will likely play immediately and give us an indication of whether they are worth it or not. Goz showed enough to give us hope. Dizon showed nothing. The Lions could effectively cut Dizon, and there would be a slight cap hit, but nothing major and we could move on, as soon as this year.

Not so with a first overall pick, and ESPECIALLY not so with a QB, because of the required development time. We won't know what we actually have in Stafford until 2011 or 2012. If he sits this year and starts next year, any mistakes or problems will be attributed to him being in his "rookie" season as a starter. You let him go again, to see if he "gets it" in his third year. By that time, your other players are reaching the ends of their contracts and could be looking for a way out of this franchise because they're tired of the losing.

I would happily love to see Stafford step in, get his development and then become the player his supporters feel he will become. But it won't happen unless this administration gets solid picks and starters in the first three rounds of the next two to three drafts.

If we take Curry, and those other players fizzle out, Curry will still be a damn good player because he won't be as dependent on others to succeed. Look at Patrick Willis. Look at Demeco Ryans. Look at D'Qwell Jackson. All three players considered very good, and they are on bad to so-so teams.

Why gamble with that first overall pick? I know every pick is a gamble, and that Curry could turn out to be the next Kevin Hardy or Aundray Bruce. But we'd at least know he was that bad pretty quickly and not have to wait three years to KNOW.

April 23rd, 2009, 10:05 pm

Blueskies

Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 2882

Quote:

The double standard I'm talking about is regarding QB's. You discredit my list of QB's acquired onto teams who thereafter where successful as being washed up, unknown, risks, gambles therefore, by your argument, not valid ways to become a successful team. How the heck can you turn around and make like taking one of the riskiest QB prospects no. 1 sound and viable? You conveniently ignore it's inherent risks. Therefore your double standard.

I think you're confused as to what I'm trying to say.

I'm not talking about OVERALL FRANCHISE SUCCESS. The argument was thrown out there by yostevo that finding veteran, quality defensive players/offensive lineman is more difficult in FA and trade than finding QBs, and its just not the case at all.

Many quality defensive players/offensive lineman are let go from their teams every year. Quality QBs virtually never enter the FA market. The ones that do are old or have injury history.

I never once in this topic said that the only way a team can be successful is to draft a franchise QB, or that journeyman QBs can't win a SB. So I don't know where you get that characterization of my argument from.

Quote:

The point that you can move around in the draft to get your QB is also valid. I don't know what law or rule you abide by that says the Lions can't move around in the draft to target a QB.

San Diego wanted a QB. They gave up the rights to Eli for the rights to a different franchise QB. It's like trading a dollar for four quarters. Can't get the dollar unless you had one to begin with.

Quote:

Again what the heck is your stance? The only thing I can figure out is you want the next Peyton Manning. Because if you are willing to discount a quarter of the leagues success because they didn't do it the Peyton Manning way, I don't know what the heck your point is. You don't do a very good job of making it clear.

My stance is simple.

I would be fine with either Stafford or Curry. I really think they're both quality players. I don't really favor one or the other. Stafford has a higher ceiling but a lower floor, and if he doesn't bust it will be hard to find someone like him. Curry on the other hand is pretty much you see what you get, but finding high quality linebackers isn't as hard and isn't as important.

However, I think that many of the posters on this board (yourself included) over exaggerate the risks associated with taking Stafford.

While no one is saying he's the consensus best prospect, no one is really saying he's trash. Virtually every analyst has him in the top 10 best players available--most top five. So I'm simply trying to shoot down the biased arguments everyone has against Stafford.

Quote:

and teams like the Lions have been so busy chasing a "golden goose" or the "next Peyton Manning" with a top pick that they choose not to sign them as UFAs.

The Lions have also tried the UFA market: Kitna, McCown, Garcia. Didn't work out.

Quote:

Cutler has played 3 seasons.... made 1 Pro-Bowl.Allen had played 4 season when traded..... made 1 Pro-Bowl.

Allen is (pretty much) a consensus top 5 (maybe top 3) DE. Cutler is not a consensus top 5 QB.

Quote:

Allen has played 5 years at a position that is capable of having an immediate impact..... while Cutler has started less than 2.5 seasons.

QB is a position of potential immediate impact as well. That's a weak argument.

The development time for DEs is almost as long as QBs.

Quote:

And don't forget that Allen's price suffered due to being a 2-time offender in the NFL substance abuse program, and faced a 1 year suspension if he had made another infraction.

And Cutler is a whiny ***** that demanded a trade.

Quote:

NOBODY is comparing WORTH.... it is about AVAILABILITY.

If you want to argue that QBs are more available than defensive players, you'll lose that argument every time.

Here's another quick example: Haynesworth, unamious best defensive tackle in the league, back-to-back pro bowler, leaves the Titans in the prime of his career. Titans get NOTHING in compensation. That would NEVER happen if he was a QB.

Quote:

Cutler himself was landed by the Broncos when they traded up from #29 all the way to #11 to draft him in 2006. It didn't cost the Broncos a 1st round pick to do it either!!!

I haven't even looked at draft moves to acquire defensive talent.

Quote:

If we take Curry, and those other players fizzle out, Curry will still be a damn good player because he won't be as dependent on others to succeed. Look at Patrick Willis. Look at Demeco Ryans. Look at D'Qwell Jackson. All three players considered very good, and they are on bad to so-so teams.

You can't argue: well assuming all the other picks bust, Curry is the best choice.

You have to assume that the other picks will pan out, or at least do decently well. If they don't pan out, it won't matter that Curry is a superstar. Because the team will still be terrible with or without Curry. A crappy team with a great Curry is not going to win more games than a crappy team with a bust Stafford.

April 23rd, 2009, 10:21 pm

InterimLionsMasterPimp

Walk On

Joined: November 2nd, 2008, 1:29 amPosts: 427

How long have we been using the offensive line as an excuse for our losing. Since Barry for sure and probably long before. Look, the day may never come when we have an elite offensive line. We've invested some picks there in the past, and still we struggle. If it takes another ten years to get the line right, will we still be waiting for the magical 'right time' to bring in our quarterback?

The situation is not ideal. My guess is that it never will be. Maybe we should consider making the team we have better, rather than waiting for the team we want. A quarterback is a viable way to do that.

Look at the situation. We have made progress toward becoming a better offensive line. We brought in a new coordinator and a new line coach in Yarno. We have a coaching staff dedicated, not just in words, to running the football with power. A balanced running/passing attack will improve our line w/out new players. We are going to a more power oriented blocking scheme, with bigger players. Those players *hopefully* will prove more adept at holding the line of scrimmage. We acquired Loper, who may be a solid starter, but at least is a quality backup. We signed Peterman long-term, signifying the staff believes he will be a quality starter. That gives us stability on one side of the line. We have a 1st round pick coming into his own on the right side, hopefully solidifying the right side for years to come. We have experience, if not great talent, at center and left tackle. We have many draft picks to build on the foundation we've started. Further, if we draft Stafford, our pass pro should improve as a result of his quick release and hopefully quick decision making. No, our line isn't great, but it's not foolish to believe it may be significantly improved and getting better every week.

We cannot use every draft pick on the line. At some point, we have to trust the new staff is making the right moves and support the decision to draft a QB. I have confidence that our line can protect well enough to allow a quarterback to make this team better.

1. Stafford just does not strike me as a franchise QB. The thing that bothers me is that the first (and pretty much ONLY) thing out of people's mouths is: "He has an incredibly strong arm." And then they say... "He has an amazingly strong arm." And then after that they say... "Have you seen how big his arm is?" What they DON'T say is "This guy is superbly accurate. This guy is a tough, charismatic leader who can rally a team around him, no matter the circumstances. This guy is the total package." All you ever hear about him is that he has "a big arm." And when that is the only thing people can find to say about him, that will always and forever stir inside me a deep-seeded, primal fear. There are just waaay to many question marks, and having "a big arm" as has been previously stated, does not a franchise QB make. In my opinion, he is not WORTH the #1 overall pick, and will never be anything more than an average-to-good QB.

2. I realize that we, as it stands, are a terrible team. I realize it is a big project to try and turn this ship around. I realize that expecting us to immediately be in playoff contention, despite the quick turn-around of the Phins and Falcons, is unrealistic. But the fact of the matter is, this is the NFL. Coaches have a 3 year window in which to get something done, and then they are out the door. If in fact we do draft Stafford, and sit him for a year (which we would HAVE to do), and he comes in to take over for 2010. That would, essentially, be his rookie year. So if 2010 is another crappy year, then Schwartz and Co. go into 2011 on the proverbial "hotseat." If things STILL aren't going well... you can pretty much kiss Schwartz goodbye. So then we have a QB who is labeled as just another Joey Harrington, with a new coaching staff and system to adjust too, fans hate him, likely new players around him, and we have to suffer through another 4 or 5 years of this junk. Personally, I am not looking forward to a scenario like that.

3. Curry is, plain and simple, a better player. We have the #1 pick in the draft. I understand that applying common since to the NFL and this team in particular is a strange and foreign concept, but wouldn't common sense dictate that with the #1 pick in the draft, we should choose the #1 player? You can talk all you want about "premium positions" and "value" but what good is a premium position if he isn't any good? Curry not only provides immediate returns, but could provide these returns for years to come. Stafford is not, right now, a franchise QB. You are taking a huge risk saying that he will EVER become a franchise QB. It all comes down to how he is handled and what kind of situation he goes into. Coming into THIS situation spells nothing but disaster for him.

When you get down to brass tacks, I think that the main reason why I don't want to draft Stafford is that there are too many things that can go wrong. I just cannot come up with a single good, solid reason why we SHOULD draft him. Because he might maybe, possibly, hopefully be a franchise QB? That's pretty flimsy. With a team this bad, you have very little room for experiments and screwing around. We need as close to a sure thing as we can get, and that is Curry.

I've been rolling this around in my head for a long time, but ultimately, I can't bring myself to accept Stafford. It makes me think about all the things that have been done over the last 10 years or so: Gambling on players because they are "premium positions", ignoring the things that have been our Achilles heel for so long, spewing the same old excuses, going along with the crowd... all the things the OLD Lions used to do, and I had hoped they might have given up. If they do draft Stafford, all the already tentative confidence in this new regime will be all but gone. I just cannot stand to watch the same old crap over and over and over again. There is only so much a person can take.

Bashing your head against a brick wall and expecting it to fall over. That's what I have felt like for the past decade or so. And I have a feeling that Stafford isn't going to be the sledgehammer that finally knocks down that wall...

April 23rd, 2009, 10:57 pm

yostevo

Heisman Winner

Joined: March 28th, 2005, 7:50 pmPosts: 819Location: Burbs of De-town

Blueskies wrote:

Quote:

You don't find really good defensive players or OL floating around in free agency unless they are at the end of their ropes. That's why the team let them go in the first place. That's why early picks of these types of players are paramount.

Laughable.

Joey Porter. Jared Allen. Jason Peters. Simeon Rice. Warren Sapp. Alan Faneca. Darren Sharper. All defensive/offensive line guys let go or traded in the prime of their careers. And those are just the recent ones I can think of off the top of my head. There are dozens more.

Prime of their careers? Allen,Peters and Rice for sure but that's laughable about the rest. You bring up some fine examples of players that have moved. Are you still going to make the leap and say they are just as readily available as QBs tend to be every year? There's where I think your argument falls a little flat.

April 24th, 2009, 8:40 am

Blueskies

Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 2882

yostevo wrote:

Blueskies wrote:

Quote:

You don't find really good defensive players or OL floating around in free agency unless they are at the end of their ropes. That's why the team let them go in the first place. That's why early picks of these types of players are paramount.

Laughable.

Joey Porter. Jared Allen. Jason Peters. Simeon Rice. Warren Sapp. Alan Faneca. Darren Sharper. All defensive/offensive line guys let go or traded in the prime of their careers. And those are just the recent ones I can think of off the top of my head. There are dozens more.

Prime of their careers? Allen,Peters and Rice for sure but that's laughable about the rest. You bring up some fine examples of players that have moved. Are you still going to make the leap and say they are just as readily available as QBs tend to be every year? There's where I think your argument falls a little flat.

Yes.

If you want to test a theory generate a list of every QB, defensive player, and offensive lineman that made a pro bowl with a team one season, and was with a different team the next season (in the last 20 years).

My money is that the list of defensive players and offensive lineman will be overwhelming longer than the list of quarterbacks.

Granted, its not really a fair argument for you because QB is only one position and defense/offensive line comprise over a dozen positions. If you wanted to break it down into further individual defensive/line positions, my money is still that the shortest list of names will be the QB, with left tackle being very close.

April 24th, 2009, 9:16 am

yostevo

Heisman Winner

Joined: March 28th, 2005, 7:50 pmPosts: 819Location: Burbs of De-town

Blueskies wrote:

yostevo wrote:

Blueskies wrote:

Quote:

You don't find really good defensive players or OL floating around in free agency unless they are at the end of their ropes. That's why the team let them go in the first place. That's why early picks of these types of players are paramount.

Laughable.

Joey Porter. Jared Allen. Jason Peters. Simeon Rice. Warren Sapp. Alan Faneca. Darren Sharper. All defensive/offensive line guys let go or traded in the prime of their careers. And those are just the recent ones I can think of off the top of my head. There are dozens more.

Prime of their careers? Allen,Peters and Rice for sure but that's laughable about the rest. You bring up some fine examples of players that have moved. Are you still going to make the leap and say they are just as readily available as QBs tend to be every year? There's where I think your argument falls a little flat.

Yes.

If you want to test a theory generate a list of every QB, defensive player, and offensive lineman that made a pro bowl with a team one season, and was with a different team the next season (in the last 20 years).

My money is that the list of defensive players and offensive lineman will be overwhelming longer than the list of quarterbacks.

Granted, its not really a fair argument for you because QB is only one position and defense/offensive line comprise over a dozen positions. If you wanted to break it down into further individual defensive/line positions, my money is still that the shortest list of names will be the QB, with left tackle being very close.

Let me ask you this. Would you rather have an impact QB with a average defense or a impact defense with an average QB?

I'd rather have the latter because I think it's a lot easier to achieve consistant success. I'm willing to bet that I can find a lot more serviceable QBs to go with a stout defense that I draft early.

When players like K.Collins, Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson,Rex Grossman, Jake Delhomme,Chris Chandler,Stan Humphries,Jeff Hostetler, Neil O'Donnell and Mark Rypien are going to Super Bowls within the last 20 years, there's evidence to suggest there's more than one way to skin a cat.

April 24th, 2009, 9:34 am

Blueskies

Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 2882

Quote:

Let me ask you this. Would you rather have an impact QB with a average defense or a impact defense with an average QB?

I'd rather have the latter because I think it's a lot easier to achieve consistant success. I'm willing to bet that I can find a lot more serviceable QBs to go with a stout defense that I draft early.

When players like K.Collins, Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson,Rex Grossman, Jake Delhomme,Chris Chandler,Stan Humphries, and Mark Rypien are going to Super Bowls within the last 20 years, there's evidence to suggest there's more than one way to skin a cat.

But now you're changing the argument.

The original argument was: are QBs harder to find/more rare than quality defensive players and offensive lineman? I say yes, they are.

Now whether or not you're better off building the defense and praying you find a QB later: that's a different argument and I'm not sure where I stand on that one.

April 24th, 2009, 9:50 am

TheRealWags

Modmin Dude

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12312

yostevo wrote:

Let me ask you this. Would you rather have an impact QB with a average defense or a impact defense with an average QB?

I'd rather have the latter because I think it's a lot easier to achieve consistant success. I'm willing to bet that I can find a lot more serviceable QBs to go with a stout defense that I draft early.

I think I'd rather have an impact QB with an average Defense (see Colts)

yostevo wrote:

When players like K.Collins, Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson,Rex Grossman, Jake Delhomme,Chris Chandler,Stan Humphries, and Mark Rypien are going to Super Bowls within the last 20 years, there's evidence to suggest there's more than one way to skin a cat.

How many of those guys won the Super Bowl? Do you just want to go to the Super Bowl or would you like to win it?

April 24th, 2009, 9:51 am

yostevo

Heisman Winner

Joined: March 28th, 2005, 7:50 pmPosts: 819Location: Burbs of De-town

Blueskies wrote:

Quote:

Let me ask you this. Would you rather have an impact QB with a average defense or a impact defense with an average QB?

I'd rather have the latter because I think it's a lot easier to achieve consistant success. I'm willing to bet that I can find a lot more serviceable QBs to go with a stout defense that I draft early.

When players like K.Collins, Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson,Rex Grossman, Jake Delhomme,Chris Chandler,Stan Humphries, and Mark Rypien are going to Super Bowls within the last 20 years, there's evidence to suggest there's more than one way to skin a cat.

But now you're changing the argument.

The original argument was: are QBs harder to find/more rare than quality defensive players and offensive lineman? I say yes, they are.

Now whether or not you're better off building the defense and praying you find a QB later: that's a different argument and I'm not sure where I stand on that one.

I'm not really trying to change it, it's just that the premise of my argument was leading to this discussion. It's pretty clear that we have reached an impasse with the original discussion. You think one thing, and I clearly think another way. So, I felt the need to move along. :dunno:

I believe serviceable QBs with great defenses can get you to the big game and can be had more easily then the other way around. In the process of drafting that great defense, you could still end up with an all pro QB with any stroke of luck. Pittsburgh and Roethlisburger for one.

April 24th, 2009, 10:08 am

yostevo

Heisman Winner

Joined: March 28th, 2005, 7:50 pmPosts: 819Location: Burbs of De-town

TheRealWags wrote:

yostevo wrote:

Let me ask you this. Would you rather have an impact QB with a average defense or a impact defense with an average QB?

I'd rather have the latter because I think it's a lot easier to achieve consistant success. I'm willing to bet that I can find a lot more serviceable QBs to go with a stout defense that I draft early.

I think I'd rather have an impact QB with an average Defense (see Colts)

yostevo wrote:

When players like K.Collins, Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson,Rex Grossman, Jake Delhomme,Chris Chandler,Stan Humphries, and Mark Rypien are going to Super Bowls within the last 20 years, there's evidence to suggest there's more than one way to skin a cat.

How many of those guys won the Super Bowl? Do you just want to go to the Super Bowl or would you like to win it?

LOL Wags, being a bit picky aren't we? But since you asked, K Collins, Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Jeff Hostetler, Mark Rypien. I think it works okay!?!

April 24th, 2009, 10:12 am

m2karateman

RIP Killer

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10136Location: Where ever I'm at now

Blueskies wrote:

You can't argue: well assuming all the other picks bust, Curry is the best choice.

You have to assume that the other picks will pan out, or at least do decently well. If they don't pan out, it won't matter that Curry is a superstar. Because the team will still be terrible with or without Curry. A crappy team with a great Curry is not going to win more games than a crappy team with a bust Stafford.

WHAT?! I am NOT going to assume any player is going to pan out, particularly those players taken in later rounds. Assuming that those picks will pan out is a lesson in futility. How many second or third round picks do we have on our roster from that were taken by the Lions in recent memory? How many of those are quality starters? IAF, Stanton, Alexander, Bullocks, Calhoun, Keith Smith, Dizon, Fluellen, Avril and Kevin Smith. All other players taken in those rounds are no longer on the roster, and few are on other teams doing anything but being camp fodder or sub-standard backups. So, out of all those players I have shown, only Kevin Smith and Bullocks would be full time starters, with Avril being considered as a starter, despite the fact he was mostly platooned last season. IAF, Calhoun, Dizon....I'd count them as busts. Keith Smith is a good nickel corner, but hasn't been able to break into a starting role on a team STARVED for talent at the corners. I think he doesn't even make more than half the rosters in this league, even as a dime corner. So I would quantify him as a poor pick. Fluellen and Stanton are still unknown commodities, for whatever reason. Alexander? Unfortunate injury which will affect the remainder of his career. That happens, so you can't count on every player taken in rounds two or three to remain healthy and be able to start for you. So, we have 10 players taken in rounds two and three recently that are still with the team. Out of those, only two contribute full time. But you want me (and all others) to assume that those picks are going to pan out?

You're fooling yourself (to quote a Styx song).

For the same reason people like you who support the Stafford pick say "there may not be a QB available at our pick next year, so take him now." I can say there may not be solid defensive talent we need at our pick next year, so take who you need now.

Last draft, good example. We wanted Jerod Mayo, but the Pats take him. Instead of getting the defensive player we NEEDED and wanted, we reached for an offensive tackle. Goz may turn out to be a very good tackle, but it doesn't change the fact that the player we REALLY wanted and needed wasn't there. And then, to top it off, we reached again in the second round and got garbage hoping to turn it into a treasure. The player we were targeting in the second round, Curtis Lofton, was taken ahead of us AGAIN.

You say if the other players don't pan out and Curry is a superstar it won't matter. But my whole explanation is that if those other players don't pan out and Stafford is our pick, he has NO CHANCE of becoming a good quarterback for this team. Curry can be a superstar without supporting players, Stafford cannot. If we don't take Curry, and the other players don't pan out AND Stafford busts as a result, then we are still looking for a QB and MLB, instead of just the QB (and whatever else is needed).

Curry is not going to change this defense, or this team, by his presence. I know that. However, it is one piece of the puzzle that we can get with fair certainty that he will be very good, even if we don't get anyone else. And just like Curry has said he'd like to play with Ernie Sims and Julian Peterson, players of quality attract other players of quality.

Bottom line: we need a Middle Linebacker, and have for three years or more. We could use a good young QB for the future, but don't NEED to have him now.

You asked someone else:

If I gave you a choice of $1 today, or $10 three days from now, which would you choose?

He answered, How badly do I need $1?

My answer is, am I sure you'll be there with $10 three days from now? I have $1 in hand now, and I may need that dollar to live for the next three days.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. I'll take the bird in hand now.